|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
136532
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The rapid progress of science and technology in the twentieth century delivered economic growth and enriched our quality of life. However, it has also created unforeseen problems, such as environmental, bioethical, and security concerns. These are the “lights” and “shadows” of science and technology. The twenty-first century is the first time in history when the world, through digital technology, has become truly interconnected. Now more than ever, science and technology issues are social issues as well. They cannot be solved by scientists alone or by any single country. Science and technology presents global challenges and opportunities that need to be addressed by stakeholders across disciplines and national borders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
136530
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
There is a history of engagement between scientists in the European Union and the Russian Federation (and, previously, the Soviet Union). This cooperation is based on the bilateral interests of governments and individual scientists alike for interaction and engagement. It also fits the EU’s broader policy goals, whereby “international cooperation in research and innovation [is seen] as an instrument of soft power and a mechanism for improving relations with key countries and regions.”1 Now, with the events in Ukraine and mutual EU and Russian sanctions, science can again—as it did during and immediately after the Cold War—play a role in sustaining dialogue and continuing fruitful and mutually beneficial connections that could help reestablish broader links. The significant scientific cooperation activities between EU member states and countries associated with its Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development, the EU’s key instrument of international science and technology (S&T) cooperation, and the Russian Federation provide a solid basis to jointly tackle common societal challenges. This paper describes an approach aimed at better understanding these challenges and determining how future scientific collaborations can most appropriately and effectively tackle them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
136529
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
International science cooperation networks are increasingly contributing to improving relationships among countries and to the integration of world regions.1 Latin American countries have a long tradition of bilateral, regional, and global scientific cooperation as an essential tool to strengthen and complement national capacities for research, technological development, and innovation.2 However, despite numerous multilateral initiatives, the region has not fully leveraged the opportunities and additional benefits that scientific collaboration offers to facilitate international relations, address shared transnational challenges, and achieve common development goals. The multiplicity of forums at the political level, budgetary problems, political instability, and the gap between science and policy have limited the effectiveness and relevance of multilateral scientific initiatives on broader political and societal decisions.3 The accelerated growth of Latin America in the last decade represents an opportunity to build scientific and technological capacity while contributing to strengthening the relationships among its countries in the twenty-first century.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
136528
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
October 8, 2008, was a proud day for most close observers of the emerging relationship between the United States and India. In the grand East Room of the White House, flanked by senators and congressmen, and in front of more than two hundred assembled dignitaries and diplomats, President George W. Bush signed into law legislation formally opening the door to civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries for the first time in almost thirty-five years.
Most of those who followed the long and arduous journey of the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation Initiative, as it is formally known, understood that the scene unfolding that day was the culmination of many years of negotiations, compromises, and diplomatic trust. The deal represented the desire of two countries to put decades of suspicion and antagonism behind them in favor of a strong and stable partnership. As President Bush said on that day, “This agreement sends a signal to the world: nations that follow the path of democracy and responsible behavior will find a friend in the United States of America.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
136527
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Six years ago, during testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Science, Space and Technology, I announced the establishment of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Center for Science Diplomacy, guided by “the over-arching goal of using science and scientific cooperation to promote international understanding and prosperity.” One of its primary objectives is to bring attention to the central role of science in the conduct of foreign policy; this journal, Science & Diplomacy, is one such example. But while the term “science diplomacy” has become more and more en vogue in recent years, its long-term sustainability as a movement will require greater recognition of the value and benefits to the science community in engaging more energetically with the foreign policy community.
My own experiences from almost four decades in science policy have been marked by both the changing nature of the international science enterprise and the importance of science to addressing the major societal challenges of the global community—both the increased internationalization of science and the critical importance of science and scientists in the global policy arena. Virtually every international policy issue has a science, health, technology, or environmental component. As a result, over the past decades we have witnessed an increasing role of scientists within the global policy making community. One need only look towards the recent policy discussions around Ebola and climate change to see how important science and scientists are to discussions and solutions. At the same time, more and more policy makers around the world are looking to science and technology INVESTMENTS and cooperation as ways to jump start their underperforming economies, solve other local problems, and improve the health and welfare of their people. New products come from new discoveries, and more and more of these discoveries are being built on a platform of global science cooperation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
136531
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In 1998, U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright recognized the growing importance of issues related to science and technology (S&T) in foreign policy and commissioned a report from the National Research Council (NRC) of the U.S. National Academies to examine how the Department of State could better meet its responsibilities in this arena.1 One of the recommendations of the report, completed a year later, was that “the Secretary should select a highly qualified STH [Science, Technology, and Health] Senior Advisor to the Secretary and to the selected undersecretary to provide expert advice, drawing on the resources of the American STH communities, as necessary, on current and emerging issues.”2 The first science and technology adviser to the U.S. secretary of state and its supporting office, the Office of the Science and Technology Adviser (STAS), were established in 2000.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|